This newspaper article describes increasing adoption of the daVinci surgical robot in the state of Minnesota.
It provides useful specifics to demonstrate the increased use. It also discusses two incidents in which the device appears to have been used successfully and appropriately.
But the article suffers from several key flaws:
The article says the daVinci devices have "a million dollar price tag." But it does not say whether any of this cost is passed along to insurers and patients in the form of higher costs.
The story also mentions the possibility that hospital costs will be reduced but does not provide any data to back it up.
Nonetheless, at least it nodded in the direction of costs.
The report does not summarize findings of benefits and harms. It also allows a surgeon to say it has the benefit of reducing hospital time by half without pressing for some detail or source.
The story does not mention negative outcomes that may be associated with the daVinci machines. It does not indicate whether complication rates are higher, lower or equal.
The story also fails to mention the potential harm if the machine is used to justify a hospital’s investment or support surgical revenues regardless of whether it’s the best use for a particular patient.
The article mentions briefly that there is little evidence to show that the daVinci improves outcomes. Some details are necessary in a story centered on its increasing adoption.
The only evidence given to support the daVinci’s use is a physician’s statement that he’s "seen enough cases to believe it’s making a difference." No evidence cited to defend the claim that use of the device reduces hospital costs by half.
Two anecdotes are provided that forecast successful outcomes.
The article focuses on an extraordinary application of the daVinci device–in a highly trained athlete whose disease and lifestyle led to a decision to use the machine. This unusual story may create the impression that the robot is a life-saving necessity for hospitals and patients.
Nonethless, the story did not exaggerate the condition being treated.
The article quotes two physicians, both of whom use the machine–and work at hospitals that have invested in the machines.
The reporter should have talked to at least one surgeon who has declined to use the device, and one independent researcher with no conflict of interest who could summarize the findings of safety and efficacy.
Finally, there is some federal data about negative outcomes with the device–including at least one unnecessary death early in the device’s development–that should have been drawn on.
In the two cases cited, the article at least briefly describes what treatment without the machines would have been like. In each case, it’s open-heart surgery, which carries higher risks in the patients described.
But it would have been valuable to know where robot-assisted surgery falls among treatment choices–including non-robot-assisted minimally invasive surgeries and non-surgical options–for someone found with clogged coronary arteries, for instance.
The article does a good job of specifying how many daVinci surgery robots are available in Minnesota–and which facilities have them.
The story makes no false claims of novelty. It does a good job of describing the state of the machines’ use in the paper’s circulation area.
There does not appear to be a press release associated with this report.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like